I do however dispute your claim that this leads to "less propaganda and BS". Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want, safe in the knowledge the Rogan posses neither interest or the background to challenge them on any of it.

True. Guests are free to BS as much as they want. I would still argue this happens less frequently as you might think and certainly compared to any other interview format/medium.

Rogan has stated many times that there are people who won't come on his show because of the long running time. I take this as evidence that either these would-be guests are either programmed for short-form interviews (e.g. soundbites, making claims they can't back up with any objectivity) or the claims they would make do not hold up to any amount of scrutiny.

In this sense, I think the runtime/medium is the filter for BS – not the interviewer.

He sees parsing that and responding to it as our job.

I think it is.

As a long-time watcher of JRE, this just isn't true. He clearly sometimes prepares, and he does push back (especially if it's on a topic he's into). He has explicitly said that he used to push back too hard in the past, leading to argumentativeness, bickering, etc.

For some strong push-back towards a scientist deluded about the effectiveness of Aikido leading into an awkward argument see https://youtu.be/06olLYiMvM4?t=8985

On the recent podcast with Bernie he started pushing Bernie on his drug legalization stance. He didn't push as hard as I would like, but he definitely pushed.

He had a podcast with Jack from Twitter after which he received feedback that he didn't push Jack hard enough about censorship. He apologized for that, got Jack on again, but brought on someone with more knowledge about specific instances of censorship to make that case (Tim Pool).

Etc.

Instead we have a show from the beliefs of each guest, and even if some guests are wrong (I'm sure every guest is wrong in some way), you do end up with a diversity of beliefs.

Then he'd be a terrible interviewer. Go look at any competent interviewer. When and how much they push back should be completely unrelated to their personal views.

If you want the mainstream viewpoint on whatever someone is talking about, go read or watch the mainstream, there's no shortage of people telling you what is acceptable already.

Because at that point it's just an infomercial.

But, even if you consider it an infomercial, I don't see what the problem is. Don't like what they have to say? Don't watch. Not sure you can trust his guests? Don't watch.

I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs are more valuable to their listeners, and will preferentially watch/listen them instead as a result. You're welcome to disagree if you like.

The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan is a good example of someone who won't let a guest dodge a tough issue - his interview of Erik Prince is a must-see for the benefits of a more confrontational approach, IMO. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mehdi-hasan-caught...

So, because you don't like infomercials, Joe Rogan shouldn't do them?

> I feel interviewers who push their guests to confront and address the rougher edges and ramifications of their beliefs

I feel I'm smart enough to figure out for myself if someone's claims or beliefs have rougher edges and ramifications. I don't need someone to ask these questions, if they go unaddressed, I make a determination as to why.

For instance "Drink this koolaide and you'll go to heaven." I don't need someone to question that, I'll be sure to question it on my own. Did the person espousing such a belief do enough to substantiate their opinion during the interview or not?

"I'm smart enough to figure out for myself" is sometimes true, but it's also what gets us anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

Joe Rogan can do whatever the fuck he wants, just like I can criticize his choices.

> Since Rogan never cares to really question or seriously push back against any claims being made, the guests are free to spout as much "propaganda and BS" as they want

Who is Rogan to question or push back? And, if he were to do so, on what basis would you find the push back acceptable?

Could you provide an example of something you expected him to 'push back' against, and why you think he should have pushed back?

> wanting mainstream viewpoints

Clearly, it's implied that if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this. That most likely is some mainstream viewpoint of which you might find objectionable to unfiltered discussion. Allowing objectionable discussion to take place is surely a thought crime that needs policing, in many people's view point. You might not agree with the wording or implied context, but not everything is about what you think, and I would characterize that as policing 'thought crime'.

On the basis that that is the interviewers role. Have you watched skilled interviewers? An interviewer pushing back against a statement is not a signal that he disagrees with the statement or believes there to be anything wrong with it. A skilled interviewer will often challenge statements they 100% agree with and believe to be true as a tool to strengthen and clarify the point.

if there's something he should 'push back' against that is clearly 'propaganda and bs' then there must be some basis for evaluating this.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The interviewer shouldn't be pushing back because they a priori believe a statement to be BS, but to test if the statement is BS. Questioning someone and giving them the opportunity to defend and clarify their viewpoint is surely the opposite of policing and filtering it.

Because figuring out what is BS can be hard? (Look at all the people who believe in the BS that is Young Earth Creationism.)

Because it's not a thought-crime to decide to not cover certain topics?

Consider a discussion about the need for forced participation in human experimentation, like deliberately freezing unwilling prisoners in experiments with the goal of discovering new means to prevent and treat hypothermia.

If someone wants to present that, and is denied, is that denial an enforcement of thought-crime? Is it possible to present that impartially, and what would that look like? Is it meaningful to present those ideas without also bringing up the history of unethical human experimentation, and the reasons for deciding what is ethical? Can it not be that the 'mainstream viewpoint' is actually the ethical one, and strongly opposed ones deeply unethical?

I skip a lot of episodes because I also don't care for the MMA talk and most of his guests, but these two statements pretty much sum up why I've been a long time subscriber to his podcast.